NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0035-24
FAITH HAINES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted December 9, 2025 – Decided February 5, 2026
Before Judges Gilson and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Faith Haines, self-represented appellant.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Christopher Weber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph D. Sams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Faith Haines, who is incarcerated in a correctional facility, appeals from
a final agency decision by the Department of Corrections (Department), which
determined she had no right to administratively appeal an on-the-spot-correction
(OTSC), which resulted in a verbal reprimand. Haines argues her due process
rights were violated because she was not accorded an appeal. She also contends
that she was deprived of procedural rights during the hearing that resulted in her
OTSC and reprimand.
Because Haines' discipline did not subject her to a "grievous loss" of rights
and because we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the
Department's application of its regulation, which states that there is no right of
an appeal beyond a conference for an OTSC, see N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(e), we
affirm the Department's decision. Given that ruling, Haines has no right to
challenge the OTSC determination before us because we do not consider
decisions by a Department hearing officer. Instead, appeals to us are from the
final decision of the agency. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2).
I.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are not complicated. On July 23, 2024,
a corrections officer observed crumbs and several open bowls containing
chicken and other "food items" on Haines' bed. The officer also saw "ants
A-0035-24 2 crawling all over the food and bed area." Haines was charged with committing
prohibited act .651, "being unsanitary or untidy; failing to keep one's . . . quarters
in accordance with posted standards" in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
4.1(a)(5)(xiii).
The following day, the charge report was delivered to Haines. Haines pled
not guilty and was assigned a counsel substitute. She then obtained and
submitted a written statement from her cell mate.
A Department hearing officer conducted a hearing on July 26, 2024. The
hearing officer considered statements from Haines, her cell-mate, the officer
who observed the food and ants, and another officer who served the charges on
Haines. Based on that evidence, the hearing officer found Haines guilty of
committing prohibited act .651, downgraded the violation to an OTSC, and
issued Haines a verbal reprimand.
Haines filed an administrative appeal from the hearing officer's decision.
On July 29, 2024, her appeal form was returned to her, and she was informed
that she could not appeal an OTSC determination.
Haines now appeals from the Department's determination that she had no
right to an administrative appeal. She argues that the Department's failure to
accord her an administrative appeal violates her due process rights. She also
A-0035-24 3 contends that her due process rights were violated at the hearing because her
request to review a video recording was denied and her right to cross-examine
the charging officer was also denied.
A. The Right to An Appeal.
OTSCs are considered "minor" disciplinary matters. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
7.2(e); see also Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 518-19 (1975) (recognizing that
OTSCs are "minor infractions"). An OTSC adjudication subjects an inmate to
limited sanctions, including a verbal reprimand, limited loss of privileges, up to
four hours of confinement to "the room or housing area[,]" and "up to four hours
of extra work duty[.]" N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.3. The Department accords limited
review of an OTSC. In that regard, the Department regulations state, in relevant
part:
The custody staff supervisor shall hold a conference within [twenty-four] hours of receipt of the On-The- Spot Disciplinary Report/Adjudication. The inmate shall also be afforded the right to appear at the conference with the custody staff supervisor at which time the inmate may review and appeal the disciplinary report, discuss the violation and the inmate may present arguments regarding disciplinary action and challenge the proposed sanction.
....
At the conclusion of the conference, the inmate shall receive a completed copy of the On-The-Spot
A-0035-24 4 Disciplinary Report/Adjudication. Should the inmate be found guilty, a copy of the report shall be submitted to the Correction Major.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(a) and (d).]
The regulations also state: "On-the-spot disciplinary action is considered minor
in nature and as such the right afforded to the inmate to appear at the conference
shall be the final appeal for a finding of guilt to an on-the-spot disciplinary
adjudication." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(e). N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2 was adopted in 1986
and was last revised in May 2021.
The law is well-established that prisoners have limited due process rights.
Avant, 67 N.J. at 529-30; Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231,
239-40 (App. Div. 2019). Those limited due process rights, moreover, attach
and apply only to "disciplinary matters which may subject an individual to
'grievous loss' by way of punishment for serious misconduct." Avant, 67 N.J. at
519 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972)). Accordingly, due
process rights do not apply to OTSCs. See Avant, 67 N.J. at 518-19. Indeed,
when the New Jersey Supreme Court established the limited due process rights
that must be accorded to prisoners in serious disciplinary matters, it expressly
stated that it was not "concerned . . . with disciplinary response[s] to minor
infractions, sometimes called 'On-The-Spot-Correction' involving slight
A-0035-24 5 punishment such as verbal reprimand, temporary withdrawal of privileges, or
brief confinement to tier[.]" Id. at 518.
Given that Haines' charge was downgraded to an OTSC and she was given
a verbal reprimand, we discern no due process violation in the Department's
decision to follow its regulations and not allow an administrative appeal beyond
the hearing conducted by the neutral hearing officer. Moreover, we discern
nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Department's application of
its regulation. In that regard, we note that those regulations have existed for
several years and Haines can only challenge them as applied to her particular
situation. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(d); Bergen Pines Hosp. v. Dep't of Hum.
Servs., 96 N.J. 456, 471 n.9 (1984) (explaining "[t]he Administrative Procedure
Act provides that a proceeding to contest any rule . . . must be made within one
year from the effective date of the rule").
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0035-24
FAITH HAINES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted December 9, 2025 – Decided February 5, 2026
Before Judges Gilson and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Faith Haines, self-represented appellant.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Christopher Weber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph D. Sams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Faith Haines, who is incarcerated in a correctional facility, appeals from
a final agency decision by the Department of Corrections (Department), which
determined she had no right to administratively appeal an on-the-spot-correction
(OTSC), which resulted in a verbal reprimand. Haines argues her due process
rights were violated because she was not accorded an appeal. She also contends
that she was deprived of procedural rights during the hearing that resulted in her
OTSC and reprimand.
Because Haines' discipline did not subject her to a "grievous loss" of rights
and because we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the
Department's application of its regulation, which states that there is no right of
an appeal beyond a conference for an OTSC, see N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(e), we
affirm the Department's decision. Given that ruling, Haines has no right to
challenge the OTSC determination before us because we do not consider
decisions by a Department hearing officer. Instead, appeals to us are from the
final decision of the agency. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2).
I.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are not complicated. On July 23, 2024,
a corrections officer observed crumbs and several open bowls containing
chicken and other "food items" on Haines' bed. The officer also saw "ants
A-0035-24 2 crawling all over the food and bed area." Haines was charged with committing
prohibited act .651, "being unsanitary or untidy; failing to keep one's . . . quarters
in accordance with posted standards" in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
4.1(a)(5)(xiii).
The following day, the charge report was delivered to Haines. Haines pled
not guilty and was assigned a counsel substitute. She then obtained and
submitted a written statement from her cell mate.
A Department hearing officer conducted a hearing on July 26, 2024. The
hearing officer considered statements from Haines, her cell-mate, the officer
who observed the food and ants, and another officer who served the charges on
Haines. Based on that evidence, the hearing officer found Haines guilty of
committing prohibited act .651, downgraded the violation to an OTSC, and
issued Haines a verbal reprimand.
Haines filed an administrative appeal from the hearing officer's decision.
On July 29, 2024, her appeal form was returned to her, and she was informed
that she could not appeal an OTSC determination.
Haines now appeals from the Department's determination that she had no
right to an administrative appeal. She argues that the Department's failure to
accord her an administrative appeal violates her due process rights. She also
A-0035-24 3 contends that her due process rights were violated at the hearing because her
request to review a video recording was denied and her right to cross-examine
the charging officer was also denied.
A. The Right to An Appeal.
OTSCs are considered "minor" disciplinary matters. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
7.2(e); see also Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 518-19 (1975) (recognizing that
OTSCs are "minor infractions"). An OTSC adjudication subjects an inmate to
limited sanctions, including a verbal reprimand, limited loss of privileges, up to
four hours of confinement to "the room or housing area[,]" and "up to four hours
of extra work duty[.]" N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.3. The Department accords limited
review of an OTSC. In that regard, the Department regulations state, in relevant
part:
The custody staff supervisor shall hold a conference within [twenty-four] hours of receipt of the On-The- Spot Disciplinary Report/Adjudication. The inmate shall also be afforded the right to appear at the conference with the custody staff supervisor at which time the inmate may review and appeal the disciplinary report, discuss the violation and the inmate may present arguments regarding disciplinary action and challenge the proposed sanction.
....
At the conclusion of the conference, the inmate shall receive a completed copy of the On-The-Spot
A-0035-24 4 Disciplinary Report/Adjudication. Should the inmate be found guilty, a copy of the report shall be submitted to the Correction Major.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(a) and (d).]
The regulations also state: "On-the-spot disciplinary action is considered minor
in nature and as such the right afforded to the inmate to appear at the conference
shall be the final appeal for a finding of guilt to an on-the-spot disciplinary
adjudication." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(e). N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2 was adopted in 1986
and was last revised in May 2021.
The law is well-established that prisoners have limited due process rights.
Avant, 67 N.J. at 529-30; Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231,
239-40 (App. Div. 2019). Those limited due process rights, moreover, attach
and apply only to "disciplinary matters which may subject an individual to
'grievous loss' by way of punishment for serious misconduct." Avant, 67 N.J. at
519 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972)). Accordingly, due
process rights do not apply to OTSCs. See Avant, 67 N.J. at 518-19. Indeed,
when the New Jersey Supreme Court established the limited due process rights
that must be accorded to prisoners in serious disciplinary matters, it expressly
stated that it was not "concerned . . . with disciplinary response[s] to minor
infractions, sometimes called 'On-The-Spot-Correction' involving slight
A-0035-24 5 punishment such as verbal reprimand, temporary withdrawal of privileges, or
brief confinement to tier[.]" Id. at 518.
Given that Haines' charge was downgraded to an OTSC and she was given
a verbal reprimand, we discern no due process violation in the Department's
decision to follow its regulations and not allow an administrative appeal beyond
the hearing conducted by the neutral hearing officer. Moreover, we discern
nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Department's application of
its regulation. In that regard, we note that those regulations have existed for
several years and Haines can only challenge them as applied to her particular
situation. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(d); Bergen Pines Hosp. v. Dep't of Hum.
Servs., 96 N.J. 456, 471 n.9 (1984) (explaining "[t]he Administrative Procedure
Act provides that a proceeding to contest any rule . . . must be made within one
year from the effective date of the rule").
Haines argues she was entitled to an administrative appeal because she
was charged with and found guilty of prohibited act .651. Thus, she contends
that she was entitled to the normal administrative appeal rights accorded under
the section of the Department's regulations governing serious inmate discipline.
See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1; N.J.A.C. 10A:4-11.1 to -11.9. We reject that argument
because Haines' charges were immediately downgraded to an OTSC and she
A-0035-24 6 received a verbal reprimand. In short, it is the actual discipline infraction found,
and the sanction imposed that governs what, if any, due process rights are
accorded to an inmate.
We do note, however, that the Department failed to issue an adequate final
agency determination denying Haines' right to an administrative appeal. The
record on this appeal contains no written statement informing Haines that she
had no appeal rights or even a citation to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7.2(e). Instead, all the
record contains is a copy of the first page of the appeal form submitted by Haines
with a stamp: "RECEIVED JULY 29, 2024 EMCF CLASSIFICATION." One
copy of that document in the record has a handwritten note: "Cannot appeal
OTSC charges." Another copy of the document does not have the handwritten
note.
The Department has an obligation to provide Haines with a written
statement of its reason for denying her administrative appeal. Indeed, if there
was any dispute as to why Haines was denied an administrative appeal, we
would remand this matter for a more complete written final agency decision by
the Department. We also point out to the Department that it has an obligation
to issue a written adequate statement of its final agency decision so that we can
conduct an appropriate review of the matter.
A-0035-24 7 B. The Alleged Due Process Violations at the Hearing.
Having determined that the Department's regulations as applied to her
OTSC do not violate Haines' due process rights, we also hold that she has no
right to appeal the OTSC to us. The Department's regulations provide that "the
right afforded to the inmate to appear at the conference shall be the final appeal
for a finding of guilt to an on-the-spot disciplinary adjudication." N.J.A.C.
10A:4-7.2(e). That regulation covers both an administrative appeal and an
appeal to this court.
Independently, Haines has no right to appeal to us because we do not
consider decisions by a Department hearing officer. Instead, our jurisdiction is
limited to final agency decisions. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2). Given the minor nature
of the OTSC adjudication, that adjudication does not rise to the level of a final
agency decision that can be appealed to this court. Consequently, to the extent
that Haines sought to appeal from the determination by the hearing officer, we
dismiss that portion of her appeal.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
A-0035-24 8